Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010180982023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5430/2023 NIZARA DAS W/O- LATE PRAFULLA CHANDRA DAS , R/O- KULHATI, P.S- HAJO, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781104 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL , CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF), MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF) NA- MILE AMERIGOG GUWAHATI PIN-781023 3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF) HYDERABAD RANGE HYDERABAD TELANGANA PIN-500005 4:COMMANDANT 49 BN. CRPF Page No.# 2/5 KARAN NAGAR SRINAGAR JAMMU AND KASHMIR PIN-19001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S CHOUDHURY, MR M CHANDA,MS R MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS S BARUAH (C.G.C) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 14.05.2026 Heard Mr. S. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to release the arrear salary of her deceased husband with effect from 14.10.1998 to 28.07.2012 with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant family pension and other pensionary benefits due to the petitioner with effect from 28.07.2012 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The case of the petitioner is that while her husband was serving as Lance Nayak in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), in the year 1998, an FIR was lodged against him alleging that during a health check up conducted in a camp, he entered into an altercation with the Camp Commandant and although he was overpowered but after some time he allegedly open fired 15 rounds from his service rifle and that he was again over powered and was handed over to the Page No.# 3/5 police. An investigation was conducted and a charge sheet was submitted under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner further stated that during the pendency of the trial, her husband was dismissed from service vide order dated 14.10.1998. She further stated that on completion of the trial, the Trial Court held her husband guilty under Section 307 as well as Section 427 of the IPC and convicted him by imposing a punishment of R.I. for 6 months under Section 307 IPC and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 427 IPC with default stipulation. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner filed an appeal before the Agartala Bench of the High Court and the High Court passed the judgment and order on 08.08.2007 allowing the appeal and had set aside and quashed the judgment of conviction and sentence. The High Court further ordered that if the appellant was dismissed from service, he must be reinstated with all his financial benefits. Against the said judgment and order, the Union of India went in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 23.03.2015 had upheld the acquittal order but had interfered with the order of reinstatement along with the financial benefits ordered by the High Court. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the husband of the petitioner, a writ petition was filed being WP(C) No. 3058/1999 challenging the departmental proceeding and the punishment imposed and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 17.06.2010 by this Hon'ble Court wherein it was observed that the first charge which was to the effect that the petitioner had absented himself from the coy lines at about 1200 hours on 20.06.1998 without any permission from the Competent Authority was proved but the second charge in the disciplinary proceeding to the effect that he had fired 15 rounds Page No.# 4/5 from his service rifle was held to be not proved by this Court. As such, the Court had remanded the matter for a fresh decision as to the measure of penalty to be imposed upon the husband of the petitioner. This Court while remanding the matter had held that the disciplinary authority would be the best to decide on the punishment to be imposed on only one charge being proved. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner had expired on 28.07.2012 i.e. two years after the said judgment and order passed by this Court. It is needless to be mention herein that during the time when the judgment of this Hon'ble Court was passed on 17.06.2010, the criminal proceeding before the Supreme Court was going on. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the criminal case was going on before the Supreme Court as stated above, the husband of the petitioner expired on 28.07.2012 and that in 2015 the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pronounced. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner could not submit representation before the authority as she had minor children to look after and by that time the proceedings before Supreme Court was also not over and that the Covid period was also on after that. Finally on 31.01.2022, the petitioner had filed a representation before the Directorate General Central Reserve Police Force, of Ministry of Home Affairs as well as to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force(CRPF) explaining therein about the entire facts of the case as well as her inability to file representation. The said representation was also forwarded by the DIGP, CRPF Hyderabad to the Commandant 49th Battalion, CRPF. The learned CGC, however, submits that the said representation was not received by the Commandant 49th Battalion. Page No.# 5/5 In view of the facts narrated above, more so, the remand order passed by this Court for imposing punishment only on the first charge i.e. the petitioner absenting himself in the coy lines and after which nothing was done and the petitioner expired by then, it is in the fitness of the things that the petitioner may submit a representation again before the Commandant 49th Battalion, CRPF to enable her to receive the arrear salary as well as the retiral benefits. The authorities would consider her representation in the light of the facts narrated above and should not get influenced by the delay caused in submitting the representation. Further, the authorities concerned should dispose of the representation within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant